MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Progression of dopaminergic dysfunction in a <i>LRRK2</i> kindred

2008· article· en· W2085740388 on OpenAlexaff
Ramachandiran Nandhagopal, Edwin Mak, Michael Schulzer, Jess McKenzie, Siobhan McCormick, Vesna Sossi, T.J. Ruth, Audrey Strongosky, Matthew J. Farrer, Zbigniew K. Wszołek, A. Jon Stoessl

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDopaminergicDopamine transporterLRRK2NeurochemicalSubclinical infectionParkinson's diseaseAsymptomaticMedicineDiseaseNeuroprotectionDopamineInternal medicineNeurosciencePsychologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the progression of dopaminergic dysfunction in LRRK2-associated Parkinson disease (PD). We sought to characterize the neurochemical progression with multitracer PET in asymptomatic members of parkinsonian kindred (family D, Western Nebraska) carrying LRRK2 (R1441C) mutation. METHOD: Thirteen family D subjects underwent PET scans of presynaptic dopaminergic integrity and five subjects were rescanned 2 to 3 years later. RESULTS: In subjects 8, 9 (mutation carriers), and 13 (genealogically at risk subject), there was a decline in PET markers over the course of the study that was significantly greater than the expected rate of decline in healthy controls. Reduced dopamine transporter binding was the earliest indication of subclinical dopaminergic dysfunction and progression to clinical disease was generally associated with the emergence of abnormal fluorodopa uptake. CONCLUSION: PET study of presymptomatic members of our LRRK2 kindred revealed dopaminergic dysfunction that progressed over time. This represents an ideal group to study the natural history of early disease and the potential effects of neuroprotective interventions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207